TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- Thought Process On Creating A Track.
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by DjAyTeKnOtRoNiC Wow, this got a lot of responses. I think i agree that i need to finish my productions faster because it seems i get a few good things and fine tune them to the point i get bored with the track. I think i need to focus on the song as a whole and not each individual element.

That's right!
I have the same thing facing me

I am thinking to make some fast song structre first... and after that going to worry about the drum levels, crashes and stuff... Now I have been just creating melodies, trying to get the perfect kick/clap/snare.... And no finishes tune...

Im pretty much exactly the same, but I find the quicker the better. If I really try and do a track quickly, I have new ideas coming to me and it keeps it exciting for me, however if I work on a track then leave it for a day or two it just seems harder to pick up from where I left off.

If I can spend say a solid 5-6 hours on a track I will get a hell of a lot more done than if I was to spend 6 x 1 hour over several days.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut 97.2% of all statistics are made up on the spot, and 63.8% of the remainder after careful deliberation. Total bullcrap. I'm sorry bud, but I can't believe you would write that. Even if the logic made any sense... house has shorter melodies than trance since when?

Generally, yes.. trance has bigger melodies, maybe short was a bad choice of words.. but house has more focus on bass and percussions, while trance has a melodic focus, which needs huge and long leadlines which takes a great amount of space in the mix.. and you cant just introduce huge long melodies in an 8 bar break, it wont sound good.

While House music has a focus on bass and percussions, the melodic line will stay more on top of the bass and percussions, and not take that much amount of space in the mix, making it easier to introduce faster in a track.

And here are 2 tracks as en example, both track are sampled 8 bars from the breakdown.

This track has a bassline which repeats itself each 2nd bar, pads each 4th bars.
www.subtleinc.net/Sample001.mp3

This track has a melody and a bassline which repeats itself each 8 bars very often found in trance, especially the hands in the ear type of trance.
www.subtleinc.net/Sample002.mp3

This is an example of 2 tracks with different melodic structures and the breakdown needed to introduce the elements.

So basically if you want the breakdown to dissapear in todays trance, change the structure of the melody.

quote:

Originally posted by Subtle ...and you cant just introduce huge long melodies in an 8 bar break, it wont sound good.

You don't need a break to introduce a melody.

It's easy enough to just introduce it while the beat is still going...

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles You don't need a break to introduce a melody. It's easy enough to just introduce it while the beat is still going...

Try making a trance track with no breakdown at all and see how that sounds.

Ive prolly heard thousands of trance tracks the last 10 years, and i cant recall single track with no break for atleast 8 bars.

quote:

Originally posted by Subtle Try making a trance track with no breakdown at all and see how that sounds.

I already did, and I think it sounds pretty decent:

http://www.sendspace.com/file/3ow5uy

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles I already did, and I think it sounds pretty decent: http://www.sendspace.com/file/3ow5uy

It sounds decent, but still repetetive, adding a break here and there for 8 or 16 bars would have made the track sounded more interesting. When ur on the dancefloor and there is never a break anywhere u get bored, if not exhausted. a break is a good way to give the people on the dancefloor time to catch their breath.

Its anice tune but the track sounds completely boring. There nothing really goin on in it. Just 8 minutes of the same loop and arp melodies basically. It totally generic track without even the interest of a decent breakdown. And in saying that it actually does have a cople of small breakdaowns! If you wann a come on preaching about how lame everyones trance is and how uncreative they are maybe you could've actually come up with somthing original yourself.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles I'm not saying you should just toss in new things at random left and right. I'm saying that you can still make a danceable, club-playable track without using the same intro-littledrop-build-big-breakdown formula that every fucking mainstream trance producer has been copying since at least 1999. It's not really that hard to think up ways to change the arrangement a little and still make it danceable. - Make a ten-minute track with no breakdown. Or one where the breakdown doesn't happen until like eight minutes in. Or one with just a bunch of short drops instead of one big one. Or one that's ambient or breakbeat for the first five minutes then straight four-to-the-floor for the last five. But it seems like practically nobody does this. People just stick to the same "intro + littledrop + build + saw lead with low pass filter that opens up in the break" formula that's already been done thousands of times, and they're apparently unaware (or simply don't care) that hundreds of other producers are doing the exact same fucking thing as they are, just with (BOY OH BOY, here comes the creativity, guys!) slightly different notes. And the worst thing is that when somebody deviates from that formula, they'll say "that's not trance." COME ON. Does this not strike anybody else as fucking absurd?!

Absurd!? No....it's disgustingly ridiculous!


Hey man, it's not as if you weren't cool all ready with the knowledge that you provide and all...but that post just made you my hero! Down with the formula and on with the new age all ready!!

quote:

Originally posted by theartfulducker Its anice tune but the track sounds completely boring. There nothing really goin on in it. Just 8 minutes of the same loop and arp melodies basically. It totally generic track without even the interest of a decent breakdown. And in saying that it actually does have a cople of small breakdaowns! If you wann a come on preaching about how lame everyones trance is and how uncreative they are maybe you could've actually come up with somthing original yourself.

Yeah, I definitely have room for improvement. For an example of someone who does trance without breaks and is also a better producer than I am, you can listen to Earthshine by Solar Fields.



There are people besides me out there who are trying to break out of that tired anthem trance formula.

quote:

Originally posted by Subtle Generally, yes.. trance has bigger melodies, maybe short was a bad choice of words.. but house has more focus on bass and percussions, while trance has a melodic focus, which needs huge and long leadlines which takes a great amount of space in the mix.. and you cant just introduce huge long melodies in an 8 bar break, it wont sound good.

Ultimately it sounds like you're basing your entire analysis of music on the way you're best able to produce it.

I'm seriously gobsmacked by how little you seem to know about these genres while claiming to produce both of them. The entire genre of house music was a spinoff on the funk and soul songs of the 1970s and 1980s. By contrast, the very idea of trance music connotes a repetitive, tribal kind of feel. The vast majority of trance made before 1998-1999 didn't really even have melodies in the traditional sense, just various motifs that got repeated, modulated, and transposed.

Try listening to a Snap or Paul Oakenfold or Sasha mix circa 1994-1996. These were brilliant sets that had the dancefloors going absolutely nuts (you know, with people actually dancing?) and the breakdowns are few and far between, even though the basic melodies were more or less the same as today's trance.

So you've posted two examples of tracks that "needed" long breakdowns and buildups. 'Course that doesn't prove that they needed them, just that they have them. And even if that did mean something - wonderful, I can list hundreds of tracks that do that, but it still doesn't prove anything about composition in general. How about some tracks that don't use long breakdowns:

• Daft Punk - Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger
  
• Armand Van Helden - You Can't Change Me
  
• Basement Jaxx - Red Alert
  
• Fatboy Slim - The Rockafeller Skank
  
• Sandy Rivera - The Light
  
• Adam F - Music In My Mind
  
• John B - American Girls
  
• X-Cabs - Neuro
  
• Evolver - Evolver
  
• Paul van Dyk - Forbidden Fruit (long ass intro, but no breakdown!)
  
• Paul van Dyk - Words (for Love)
  

Isn't music an art? Formulas and creativity are on opposite ends of the spectrum. Templates are generally the opposite of true art. Right?

If you are set on sticking to a formula, it isn't organic and it isn't creative. It's taking a template and filling in your own four or 8 bar melody with new sounds. Not to underestimate what that requires, but sticking to a template shouldn't be the recipe for finishing a track. It can be a guide and a starting point, but that's all... it should become yours at some point.

I'm not the best producer and just really started digging into production in the last 6 months to a year for real, just about 2 years total. However, I can speak to the same type of behavior(s) from a business perspective (what I know better)... If you want to be a great CEO, knowing what other CEO's did and understanding where they came from is a great starting point. But the best business leaders didn't become who they were by being someone else... and trying to follow the template they created won't make the next person great either. Music is no different... you can probably make a lot of good music following the template, but chances of it becoming great... not so much. Most great things, business, politics, music, etc., come from change. Good things are another story.

Pioneers always take the arrows... I think you're doing something good at breaking the mold Mr. JBJ.

Breakdowns aren't bad... but I do think there is something wrong with thinking every trance song has to follow the same structure. If that's the case, shit... someone just post the template and color in the lines.

I understand what's being referred to here are standard trance templates, rather than a person's own workflow templates.

Yes, standard trance templates can truly stifle creativity, but I hope no newcomers to production take the "templates are bad" thing the wrong way.

If it makes sense to you to route all your lead elements into the same group to be processed as a group, if you always seem to require an eq on a certain element to filter out low frequencies, if you always seem to have a kick, a bass and a lead element in a track, then it's good practice to set up a template document (or several, if you're working in different styles) to save you the hassle of setting everything up each time. You know your track's going to have a kick drum, may as well set up a track to drop a kick drum onto/ into.

In terms of formulaic trance structures, absolutely there are many formulaic songs out there (whee, another massive super-hyper-megasaw breakdown with a standard chord progression! I'm in paradise!). In the end it still depends on each individual person and each individual track, what they decide to do with it. A lot of tracks with big breakdowns are still quite successful, so it's not a dealbreaker for labels, even if it is for some listeners.

Definitely something to think about though.

quote:

Originally posted by derail I understand what's being referred to here are standard trance templates, rather than a person's own workflow templates. Yes, standard trance templates can truly stifle creativity, but I hope no newcomers to production take the "templates are bad" thing the wrong way.

Well said. Workflow templates for yourself are not what I was referring to... just the standard "every tune needs this, this, and this" to be trance. And, there's nothing even wrong with learning the templates of others to get started - then making it your own and being creative with it. Everyone needs the fundamentals, but templates defining a genre are way too extreme. Change is good, well, good changes is anyway.

There are very good debates around here.

I never thought I'd learn this much in these forums

In trance i dont think that breakdowns are really a bad thing. I think they are just added in there a lot of the time to make song trance. People call any trance without a breakdown prog trance it seems. Sometimes breakdowns are really great if they are short or keep some percussions going. In a couple songs i have made instead of going to a complete breakdown i put a low pass filter on the kick or i kept some of the percussion going. People need to make breakdowns and still keep the people who will be dancing to your tune in mind.

Nothing compares to how bad vocals are in trance, i have never heard a good vocal trance song. Actually never heard good vocals in house either. Actually vocals were not made to dance to imo.

quote:

Originally posted by DjAyTeKnOtRoNiC Nothing compares to how bad vocals are in trance, i have never heard a good vocal trance song. Actually never heard good vocals in house either. Actually vocals were not made to dance to imo.

Ironic... Today I got a MySpace friend request from Breana Skiles, a singer I was unfamiliar with, and saw this blog entry:

quote:

"I just got back from WMC �08, I am inspired, looking for great music and I am ready to work. The basics of dance music are getting the crowd to move and feel what the composer. I heard more live vocals this year at the conference than I have in years, that was inspiring...but I�m looking for more. Vocalists move the dance floor too, not just instrumentals and dubs. Vocals relate and touch the crowd getting them to move. I want that, I want to make you move and feel the passion that I feel and hopefully more! What do you think about live vocals on the dance floor?"

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?f...logID=373157937

Damn, I must be bored...

WORK FLOW...Back to the original subject?

Hey... This is turning to long fight about against/pro trance breakdons/formulas.
But I think the post starter was asking about work flow? How to get a track finished?
Maybe we should get back to that subject?



I think that sometimes ready-made formulas can help!
At least I think it's more easy to build up my song using some older song/track that I like.
Since I am buillding complete track/song FIRST time here... So I have some help/advice how to create finished track.

And later, when I have the work-flow under control I can start using my own "formula" for creating complete songs...

quote:

So just think about the fact the you guna need to make about a 7 - 8 1/2 minute track, lets say. Its guna need an intro to mix into, probably a 1st drop where its guna kick in , then a main part and one great big drop, then a cresendo sort of bit, and a bit to mix out of. Get your basic ideas for the track, bassline, beat, rythym melodie etc and lay it out roughly into basic track and work on the whole thing, adding more elements, dropping stuff in and out to make it flow.

quote:

I leave my effects ie crashes, sweeps, delay bus's that sort of thing untill towards the end. Otherwise the project can start to get a bit complex too early and can be easy to loose track of what your doing.

Back to my 1st reply i gave which was just a rough idea of an efficient way to go about laying out a track. Before the Artniks decided to dispute it. The original post was mentioning that the dude couldn't even finish a song yet. Telling sumone whos trying to learn that its not good to try and copy other peoples styles and technique is just unhelpfull.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles This is exactly what is wrong with today's trance. Come up with a hook or two, then "copy paste, filter fade in / out." That's all that trance production is to some people, and that is pitiful.

No offense. But that is trance. How is that wrong?

The problem with trance is that sounds are beeing reused. Not the sturcture

My workflow, in very basic terms (I may have left a few things out):

1) choose a composition I'd like to turn into a full track (I compose separately, using just basic sounds which don't make it into the final track. I like having a heap of strong ideas to choose from, rather than coming up with one, going through the process of immediately turning it into a full track, without having the necessary space to fully reflect on the merits of the composition)

2) decide on the main instrumentation/sounds and put the main loop together. At this point, maybe 2 or 3 hours in, the main loop sounds finished/ mastered. If it's not working, time to leave that song for another day when I have a clearer idea of what I want to do. No sense throwing more time at something that's not well thought out.

3) get away from the computer and plan the journey - whether this be standard trance structure or something totally different. It's just pure conceptualizing, having fun with what I'd like to hear in the finished result. After this, I'll have a clear idea of the structure of the song from start to finish - it may be 6 minutes long, 9 minutes long - whatever I feel the melody can support and what feels right at that point in time.

4) get the main sounds recorded and locked into place - all the automation on the synths and so on.

5) get the drum programming/ sequencing in place, in broad terms.

6) add some support elements - the main sounds are in place, now I'm looking for background type musical elements that will add depth to what's already there, without getting in the way.

7) add effects/ transitions, maybe make small modifications to the drum programming if appropriate.

8) record the reverb tracks (I'm using hardware, if anyone's wondering why I'm doing this...if using software reverb, this step isn't necessary).

9) leave for a day to listen with fresh ears. If it's all good, it's done!

Generally a mix takes around 10 hours, though it can take longer if I want to get a whole bunch more creative. Though usually when I'm putting together a mix, that's not the time to be trying out new production techniques. I have separate sessions for working out new techniques, workflow improvements and such, so that my mix/ production sessions will flow even more smoothly.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Ultimately it sounds like you're basing your entire analysis of music on the way you're best able to produce it. I'm seriously gobsmacked by how little you seem to know about these genres while claiming to produce both of them.

I was analyzing the need for a breakdown, and why they are there. and nothing else, how does that make me know any less about anything than you or anyone else?

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Try listening to a Snap or Paul Oakenfold or Sasha mix circa 1994-1996. These were brilliant sets that had the dancefloors going absolutely nuts (you know, with people actually dancing?) and the breakdowns are few and far between, even though the basic melodies were more or less the same as today's trance.

No they werent, the whole production is different, these tracks was made with 909 Drum machines, analog synthesizers with people knowing what they were doing with pure inspiration and alot of passion. No loudness war, no VEC, no VST just plain and simple good repetetive hypnotic trance made with passion. The leadlines was far thinner and more repetetive.

Trance isnt everything, even a standard Progressive House, DnB, Break record has a break for 30-60 seconds during the track, if you say differently maybe u should actually listen to the stuff instead of taking history lessons.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut So you've posted two examples of tracks that "needed" long breakdowns and buildups.

Did you even listen to the samples at all ? its ONE sample of a track needing a LONG breakdown and ONE needing a SHORT breakdown.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut 'Course that doesn't prove that they needed them, just that they have them. And even if that did mean something - wonderful, I can list hundreds of tracks that do that, but it still doesn't prove anything about composition in general. How about some tracks that don't use long breakdowns: Daft Punk - Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger Armand Van Helden - You Can't Change Me Basement Jaxx - Red Alert Fatboy Slim - The Rockafeller Skank Sandy Rivera - The Light Adam F - Music In My Mind John B - American Girls X-Cabs - Neuro Evolver - Evolver Paul van Dyk - Forbidden Fruit (long ass intro, but no breakdown!) Paul van Dyk - Words (for Love) And yes, most of these have some break, but taking the kick out for 15 seconds is a perfectly valid way of minimizing the repetitiveness of a track, and is not at all the same as a 1-minute-long build/break/drop sequence. It's simply a break, nothing more, and it certainly isn't introducing any new material.

They dont have breakdowns because they dont need em, thats fine. It still doesnt mean that if you take todays trance melody formula and remove the whole breakdown the track would work. You have to change the whole idea, and in there lies the problem. And which is my point all along.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I'm not going to waste any further time on this discussion. I honestly think that this entire argument is based on deep-seated ignorance and self-delusion.

quote:

Originally posted by derail My workflow, in very basic terms (I may have left a few things out): 1) choose a composition I'd like to turn into a full track (I compose separately, using just basic sounds which don't make it into the final track. I like having a heap of strong ideas to choose from, rather than coming up with one, going through the process of immediately turning it into a full track, without having the necessary space to fully reflect on the merits of the composition) 2) decide on the main instrumentation/sounds and put the main loop together. At this point, maybe 2 or 3 hours in, the main loop sounds finished/ mastered. If it's not working, time to leave that song for another day when I have a clearer idea of what I want to do. No sense throwing more time at something that's not well thought out. 3) get away from the computer and plan the journey - whether this be standard trance structure or something totally different. It's just pure conceptualizing, having fun with what I'd like to hear in the finished result. After this, I'll have a clear idea of the structure of the song from start to finish - it may be 6 minutes long, 9 minutes long - whatever I feel the melody can support and what feels right at that point in time. 4) get the main sounds recorded and locked into place - all the automation on the synths and so on. 5) get the drum programming/ sequencing in place, in broad terms. 6) add some support elements - the main sounds are in place, now I'm looking for background type musical elements that will add depth to what's already there, without getting in the way. 7) add effects/ transitions, maybe make small modifications to the drum programming if appropriate. 8) record the reverb tracks (I'm using hardware, if anyone's wondering why I'm doing this...if using software reverb, this step isn't necessary). 9) leave for a day to listen with fresh ears. If it's all good, it's done! Generally a mix takes around 10 hours, though it can take longer if I want to get a whole bunch more creative. Though usually when I'm putting together a mix, that's not the time to be trying out new production techniques. I have separate sessions for working out new techniques, workflow improvements and such, so that my mix/ production sessions will flow even more smoothly.

Good post!
And on the original topic


Why doesn't those guys who are fighting about trance structure, start their own thread?
And let this thread be about work flow/finishing your track?

a historical note on the off-topic, Baroque music is defined by structure as well as other characters as well, is that wrong? did it make it better/worse?

on another note, i don't get you guys, everyone here are clearly different in so many ways, just lay down your opinion on the topic, no one is producing the same as the other even if you think he does.

i guess some people like the popular structure just as some people like 4/4 bass-drum, and thats not a bad thing, is it?

i find it easy for me to mix in and out of a track and fiddle with it when i know the beats are running for a minute and a half or something during the start and the end "mix time" of a track, in between i just compose what the hell that i find get me going and interest me the most while making fun during the whole process, thats why i start producing the main part and the intro, cos thats the two that i vary the most, like making a complex break, delaying bars, adding a beat, etc... those are stuff that are very very hard to blend within your next track...

Make a track stop talking about it.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.